THE EEL.

Southland Times, Issue 22474, 9 November 1934, Page 5

THE EEL.

To the Editor.

Sir,—l should like with your permission to reply as briefly as possible to Mr Duncan’s effusion appearing in your issue of Saturday last. I wish to say now, quite frankly, that the major portion of the discourtesy and ridicule mentioned by me did not emanate from Mr Duncan, although, rightly or wrongly, I did not hold him guiltless. Mr Duncan says that my letter was a “bit solid.” I think Mr Duncan would have been wise had he adopted the axiom that “it might have been worse.” A few passages in Mr Duncan’s letter call for comment. He says my report gave no indication of when the fish was washed up, and thereafter is rarefill to quote Mr Duthie’s estimate of the time, which overstated the time by two weeks, and yet Mr Duncan says that he understood from my letter that the fish was recently washed up. My report gave a definite indication of the time. In presuming that Messrs Wilson and Lucas examined the fish two weeks after he did, is Mr Duncan not introducing another species of fish —to wit—a red herring? I can state definitely that the seven persons who I know examined the fish did so at varying periods before Mr Duncan s inspection. By what right does Mr Duncan doubt my word when I say that I spoke without malice? I cannot, even now, find malice in my letter.. I certainly was and am still (and I think quite justly) indignant at the treatment I have received. One or two other strange passages. The fish now appears to have an eel’s tail whereas before eighteen inches of the end of the fish were supposed to be missing—yes, strange! Mr Johnston’s opinion that an earlier inspection would have been helpful is ruled out because the fisn had been dead two months, (?) and yet Mr Duncan could identify the implement with which the tail was severed—wonderful! Lastly the eel has now developed gills.—Astonishing! In studying my comfort, as he says he did, I think .Mr Duncan committed his first indiscretion. I was eager to be present at the examination and purposely gave my residential address (which is only half a mile from Mr Duthie’s) and, especially considering the nature of the report, I felt that it would have been courteous for Mr Duncan to have interviewed me. However, I may be wrong. Mr Editor, what an awful lot Mr Duncan should know about fish with all that experience etc, and with your footnote to back him up too.—Gee! I suppose I should feel about as small as a match. But I dont. Sir, when I was five years old my dad showed me the difference between an eel and a trout and the knowledge hag always remained, and subsequent knowledge gained on the matter is mostly superfluous. I have yet to meet the man of average intelligence (fisherman or not) who would not be indignant if told he could not distinguish an eel from a trout. All Mr Duncans experience only makes “confusion worse confounded” because in spite of all his knowledge, with the fish before them

in the full glare of the candle and the torch he could not convince Mr Duthie that the fish was not an eel. No, not even a freak eel. (I have Mr Duthie s authority for saying this). Finally Mr Duncan asks on what grounds Mr Lucas bases his opinion, and this opens up a very mysterious side of the question. For five weeks the fish had lam practically undisturbed by anybody or anything. On September 26 Mr Duncan inspected it and did not remove it. Immediately it was known that the ranger had reported it to be an eel (this was five days later) there was a rush to procure absolute proof as to its species but every particle of the fish had vanished. The only local residents who knew where it was to be found deny removing it, and are anxious to know where it is. The question now arises. Who removed it? It was obviously some person or persons, but who? Strange, isn’t it? Yes, very strange.—l am etc., I. E. DAY.